What do you think of The Shack, by William Young?

Oh my goodness. What a loaded question. Because, yes, I did just finish it, and I am still thinking about it some, and may go back and glean, re-read, etc. However, I think it might be one that does not need to be overanalyzed. In fact, if I remember correctly, yep, I see the quote, Eugene Peterson said about it “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his.” Have you read Pilgrim’s Progress? If not, I highly recommend it….So good. On that note, Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory~a totally made-up story w/ characters that represent different things in our lives…….the Worldly Wiseman, Evangelist, Goodwill, Faithful and Hopeful; those kinds of things….. The way I see it, this book could be taken in the same vein. If he was shooting for a philosophy of religion textbook or even theology 101 I would say it falls short, however I don’t think that was his intention. I think the point was to show how God (triune) fellowships in our sufferings…..and our joys, and ALL of our life~and how life would be much more fulfilling if we would always keep that awareness in the forefront of our mind and heart. I think he made a LOT of good points about God’s desire to be known and know us; and that he did a brilliant job of trying to display some infinite God-qualities in finite man’s pea-brain sort-of capacity to understand. God in his entirety is just TOO BIG to comprehend. But I also think the author’s point is that even though that’s the case, He is still worth pursuing. William Young, the author, also did an amazing job keeping the book about relationship. I think that corporate Christendom overemphasizes religion, rituals, the “letter of the law” if you will, and I personally don’t think that is what Jesus was about. No way. He was/is/will be the WAY to God, our benevolent Heavenly Father who desires to be intimate with us! I believe that’s the message of the incarnation. God became man so that we would be able to have a relationship with him. Without Jesus, without the cross, that would have been impossible. Our perfect God could not fellowship with our dark, sinful selves. But, thanks be to Jesus, who made a way! I believe that The Shack should be seen as a picture, a painting or representation. I see it as one man’s story of his picture of God, and his journey of his relationship with Jesus. He shared his heart. He expressed his emotions. He let the world in on his intimate fellowship with the Creator of the Universe.Do you and I see and perceive God exactly the same way? Most likely, No. And that’s this guys point. The God-concepts are as unending as God himself. However, and this is where I would imagine that you (and other Christian scholars like you) would struggle with the book: There is such thing as absolute truth. So, God can’t be anything and everything to many different people; there are certain things that he is and certain things that he is not. I would venture to guess that you felt that his theology was off a little bit in certain places, because I thought the same thing. However, I don’t think that discounts his work at all because his intentions were more about the relationship and not the jot and tiddle. I think the author would be well pleased if he has stimulated Christian thought and even pressed some of us out of our comfort zones in order to embrace God in ways we have never imagined him before~and that, he has done! I would also add that He was speaking to many ills that befall us all; social injustice, materialism, self-love, temptation to suicide, etc., and he gave his slant to these things, trying to help the reader see them from God’s perspective. I was overwhelmed a few times with where he was going and the insights he shared especially about trusting God with the future and walking daily with Jesus, in the Spirit, fellowshipping with God…….